Does recycled water on playing fields cause staph infections?

Infected players blame Crusher Park

12:00a.m. 4th July 2009

The future of rugby league matches at Nambour's Crusher Park could be in jeopardy, with two Caboolture players saying they contracted golden staph following a match at the rain-drenched field.

Caboolture A-grade players Matt Morris and Nik Taylor were diagnosed with the infection after playing the Crushers in conditions that resembled a mud-pit on June 21.

Both players would not have played the following round if their fixture against the now-defunct Hinterland side went ahead, and Morris, the side's captain, is still in doubt for tomorrow's match against Noosa due to an inflamed wrist.

Reserve grade player Jess Osborn also contracted a staph infection in three of his fingers while teammate John Saunders was off work for three days with an infected knee.

It is not the first time a player has complained about contracting staph after playing at Nambour.

Former Kawana Dolphins player Steve Hodder underwent four operations on his right arm after he picked up golden staph through an elbow graze in 2005.

Morris said he would not play at the ground again after a cut the size of a "five-cent piece" left his hand swollen for more than a week.

"I definitely won't play there again if it's wet like that. I don't think anyone should be playing there if it's like that," he said.

"We came to training on Tuesday and everyone was complaining of rashes from the littlest cuts and pimples coming up over their arms and legs."

Saunders, who claims he has picked up infections from the same ground in past years, also said he would not play at the field again in those conditions.

Crusher Park is one of four Sunshine Coast sporting complexes that are maintained with recycled water and it has been tested for its safety in the past.

The water is derived from storm water and treated effluent from Sunshine Coast sewage treatment plants.

The plants produce recycled water meeting either Class A or Class B qualities as defined by the Queensland Public Health Act Amendement 2008.

A Sunshine Coast Water spokesman said both qualities of water were suitable for irrigation of sporting complexes and were tested on a weekly basis.

Nambour president Ray Madsen said the club would continue to use the field unless further tests proved it was unsuitable.

"It's (water) fully treated as it comes out of the plant and council guarantees that," he said.

"I guess you have to prove it's (infections) come from there, that's my issue.

"They train on it and for there to be 100-odd footballers play on that day and there's only two cases, who's to say it happened that day?

"I haven't heard one bloke from Nambour say that they got a sore infected from the day."

Australian Medical Association state president Mason Stevenson said it was unlikely the field was the only factor contributing to the infections.

"Golden staph is a common skin infection," Dr Stevenson said.

"The common link is that we have a contact sport with contact injuries and one of the consequences has to be skin infections.

"Any wound that is contaminated with foreign material is always at high risk of infection and the risk of infection is always present on any playing field when there's a break in the skin."

Sunshine Coast Gympie Rugby League president Ashley Robinson said the claims would be investigated.

"This is the first I've heard of this – we have to make sure the grounds are safe and that clubs are looking after them, and if we have to ask the health department, we will," he said.

When illness results from drinking recycled water then the onus of proof will be on the drinker - and what chance of  having enough money to prove your case?

The Marks of a weak Council

Toowoomba Regional Council has introduced town planning changes to make 300 square metre allotments mandatory as a proportion of new land developed.

 

300 square metres isn't big, 10 metres wide, 30 metres long.  The minimum space needed for a tennis court is 593 square metres, 17.07 metres by 34.75 metres.

 

On the weekend the residents can occupy themselves mowing the lawn with nail scissors, a task that will take fifteen minutes.  There will be no trees or lawns - just tiled roofs and bitumen roads.  This concept is not consistent with the local culture and life in the Garden City.  The City is supposed to develop in accordance with the Toowoomba 2050 Vision where "Garden City" was an important part of the Vision.

 

The Councillor responsible for the Planning Portfolio is Cr Peter Marks.  Cr Marks lives on 4000 square metres on the eastern escarpment.  He has a tennis court, a house and lots of trees and garden.

 

Does he think that 300 square metre lots are for lesser mortals than himself?   Is he ruling the 'simple masses' from an ivory tower?

 

Why did he initiate such a policy?  Did he initiate such a policy?

 

Herein lies the problem with Toowoomba Regional Council.  If Cr Marks didn't initiate this who did?  Was it Cr Ramia who lives on an acre or one of the other Councillors all of whom live in the country?

 

Who is running the region?

 

From The Chronicle: 

The Wagners' managing director did not hold back when asked about the performance of the region's councillors since amalgamation 15 months ago — accusing them of being controlled by staff, lacking vision and stifling development.

 

"They need to make the tough decisions to get the region growing. Instead, the officers are making the decisions," he said.

The current Toowoomba Regional Council is rudderless and even if it did have a sense of direction, is clearly lacking the horsepower to move in any direction.

 

A weak Council, puppets of the bureaucrats.

 

The Mayor was glowing because Kevin Rudd allocated $800,000 to the Council from some slush fund, nearly enough to cover the Councillors wages for eight months.   Each month the Councillrs collect $100,000 from the ratepayers and deliberate on 30 or so routine motions developed by the staff and then retreat to their mansions or golf clubs, too easily satisfied.

Gardasil - a developing catastrophe.

Professor Ian Frazer developed Gardasil and Professor Paul Greenfield is responsible for commercialising UQ research such as purifying sewage for drinking.  They sit side by side on the Queensland Water Commission Scientific Advisory Panel putting out the "spin" that purified sewage is safe to drink so that Professor Paul Greenfield can make money. 

 

Do you think they put out "spin" to neutralise adverse stories about Gardasil?

 

Gardasil: the denial continues

Gardasil safety continues to raise concerns

Cancer vaccine a success story

DAILY NEWS:Vaccinators are being reminded to closely observe ...

Free shots are still available

Post-Star looking for help with Gardasil story

Gardasil Linked to 47 Deaths Since 2006, Watchdog Group Says

Gardasil Side Effect Reports Included 28 Deaths, Group Says

Study: Gardasil not as cost-effective for boys

28 Deaths Tied To Gardasil, Watchdog Says

Immunizing population helps protect infants

FDA Strengthens Warnings on Gardasil

Gardasil Fainting Warning Upgraded

FDA Orders Stronger Warning Label for Gardasil

Abbott chief eyes non-pharma deals; FDA stresses fainting warning ...

Merck Resolves Shipping Delays For Shingles Vaccine >MRK

Sanofi Eats Merck's Vaccine Business for Lunch; Hopes Pinned on ...

Gardasil may have cosmetic adverse effect

 

$1.2b Gold Coast desalination plant a dud

$1.2b Gold Coast desalination plant a dud

Greg Stolz - Courrer Mail

July 02, 2009 12:00am

THE showpiece of the State Government's $9 billion water grid, the Gold Coast desalination plant, is a $1.2 billion lemon.

Rusting pipework, cracking concrete, faulty valves and leaching of contaminants from a rubbish dump on which the plant was built are among several serious defects revealed in a report to be given to the Government today.

The Government is refusing to accept ownership of the Tugun facility and has threatened legal action against contractors if the faults are not fixed.

This is after a Freedom of Information application by The Courier-Mail into problems that have plagued the plant since its official opening in November, when it failed to come on line as scheduled.

It has been shut down for weeks at a time for what was claimed to be routine maintenance and is still operating at one-third capacity.

The plant was to have been pumping 125 megalitres of water a day into the southeast Queensland water grid by January, but that did not happen until March, and then only briefly.

In April, the plant, which recently won an international desalination award, was shut down for almost six weeks. Experts have been crawling through pipes to pinpoint problems that the Government admits might not be fixed for months.

More problems have emerged since January, when then infrastructure minister Paul Lucas announced "several issues" needed to be addressed before the Government would accept handover of the plant. Those issues included 45 pipe couplings that were found to be corroding after only a couple of months of stop-start operation. The joiners, which were meant to last 25 years, had to be replaced.

Yesterday, Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said independent experts called in by the Government had found further "serious" faults that threatened the plant's long-term future.4

These included concrete cracking in the inlet shaft that takes water from the ocean via a 1.2km pipeline.

Mr Hinchliffe said the cracks were allowing groundwater, and possible contaminants from the Tugun rubbish dump on which the plant was built, to leach into the 70m-deep shaft.

As well, about 400m of stainless steel pipes would have to be replaced after they were found to be not up to specification. Valves at the plant were also substandard and had to be replaced.

"We have literally had men crawling through pipes and pulling things apart (to uncover problems)," Mr Hinchliffe said.

He denied the desalination plant was a white elephant but admitted the problems were "a frustration".

He said the reputation of the plant's contractors, including heavyweights John Holland Constructions and controversial French company Veolia, was at stake and it was in their interests to "get it right".

He said the Government, which budgeted $95 million this year to finish the plant, could withhold final payment to the contractors and take legal action if the faults were not fixed.

"The state won't be accepting the handover of the project until we're satisfied," he said.

"We also reserve the right to exercise our legal rights . . . to ensure the desalination plant that was specified is delivered."

Mr Hinchliffe said the repairs were the contractors' responsibility and taxpayers would not be out of pocket. He insisted the project was still a "fantastic" success, saying it had pumped 4.5 billion litres of water into the water grid.

Some problems had been expected with a project of the desalination plant's scale, Mr Hinchliffe said – and recent heavy rainfall over southeast Queensland had provided breathing space to get the facility working properly.

Despite the problems, Mr Hinchliffe would not rule out building more desalination plants if they were needed.

Other possible desalination plants have been earmarked for Lytton in Brisbane's east and either Bribie Island or Marcooola on the Sunshine Coast.

Former premier Peter Beattie warned that southeast Queenslanders could die if the Tugun desalination plant was not built quickly.

Consensus on Global Warming crumbles

The Climate Change Climate Change

Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley Strassell
June 26, 2009

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist—and ardent global warming believer—in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

June 4 Qld Hansard: Water and Another Act Amendment Bill

Great summary from Mr Messenger towards the end:

 'Why is the Premier so reactive? What did she do when she was a child? Did she go to school and grab canteens from all the other schoolchildren, dip them into the toilet to fill them up and maybe put little fluoride tablets in their canteens? Did they give her $10 worth of pocket money and she spent $20?' This is what we have. We have a Premier who has mismanagement in her DNA. She is reliving some sort of childhood fantasy.

Hansard 4 Jun 2009

Water and Another Act Amendment Bill

Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you can provide guidance to the member for Cook, as others have done this day. I rise to make a contribution to the Water and Another Act Amendment Bill 2009. In doing so, I express my regret that this bill does not go far enough. Of course we will be supporting this bill because it is a first step, but further action is needed. The Water Commission needs to be abolished. When we look at the premise of this bill, we see the fundamental difference between our side of politics, the LNP, and that of the Labor government.

If the Queensland public ever wanted an example, the Water Commission is the example that highlights the difference between Labor governments and conservative governments. It begins with accountability. Conservative governments are always about accountability. Yet we saw theestablishment of the Water Commission in June 2006 as a means of deflecting accountability so that the minister could hide behind the Water Commission. That shows right at the very beginning how Labor governments treat accountability in this state, as opposed to those on this side of the House who would be willing to take on that responsibility. Had this bill been designed to abolish the Water Commission the government would have had our wholehearted support. We are about governments and ministers being accountable to the people, not about hiding behind established commissions.

It goes further than that when we look at the actions of the Water Commission. We see exactly how Labor governments are able to manage budgets. And that is that they do not. They are unable to do so. When we look at the history of the Water Commission from what was promised by the Premier of the day to what was delivered and what happened year after year we see blowouts, continuing increases, phenomenal increases to the point today where we have the Premier having to cap the budget of the
Water Commission. It has got so far out of control.

Therein lies the second example of the difference between Labor governments and those of a conservative nature. It goes further than that. It comes down to the point of being willing to make the tough decisions, being willing to listen to the advice and then have the courage to step up and follow through. Again we see the Premier and this government failing to have the backbone, failing to have the willingness to show leadership on this issue.

Why is it that when the Premier commissioned a review into the functions of this commission and the review came back and highlighted, as the Weller-Webb review did, that this commission should be abolished—not downsized, not have its role redefined, not go from three commissioners to two but very simply abolished—it was not done? I paid attention to the comments made by the member for Capalaba when he talked about this government wanting to streamline the Public Service. The easiest way to
streamline the Public Service would have been to accept the recommendations with regard to the Water Commission and abolish it.

That is what it would take. We understand that that would not be a politically popular decision, but it takes leadership, it takes courage and it takes a vision for what is best for the people of Queensland. A commitment to the people of Queensland is something that those on this side of the House, members of the LNP, have and would be willing to show.

There are many things that the Water Commission has done, and I am willing to recognise that there has been some good done. It will not take me long to talk about it. What the Water Commission has been able to do is effectively educate the people of South-East Queensland in demand management. The people of South-East Queensland should be commended for that. To me the Water Commission's shining achievement is getting the people of South-East Queensland to understand, as those in rural and regional Queensland often do, that 300 litres per person per day is excessive. Target 140 shows what the people of Queensland are willing to do if we engage with them. If we are willing to bring them on side and work with them that is what can happen. For that I give the Water Commission credit. It did not need to be a Water Commission to do that.

As the member for Moggill pointed out, we see very good education components within departments—within the health department, within the police department and other areas. That function could have easily and will easily be managed within a department.

There are areas that the Water Commission managed that are atrocious and are nothing short of scandalous. I remember being on the Public Accounts Committee last year and doing a public inquiry into water infrastructure projects. The term 'invoice tendering' was being used. That just shows the lack of budget control that this government had and was willing to embrace when it came to water infrastructure.

I note the contributions of some of those opposite. They accused us of having a short memory. They accused us of saying that we do not remember what was happening. Those on the opposite side seem to forget it was a Labor government that scrapped the Wolffdene Dam. When water infrastructure was being planned for the future—not in a crisis but planned for—it was a Labor government that did not support that dam being built.

What we have seen in the last few years has been catch-up. It has not been planning. It has not been prudent work in this area. It has simply been water infrastructure catch-up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If members wish to continue conversations please do it outside the chamber and let the member be heard.

Mr GIBSON: I am sure the member for Brisbane Central is interested in my contribution to this debate.

Ms Grace: Don't bet on it.

Mr GIBSON: There was one other role of the Water Commission that I—

Mr Horan: They have a big weekend coming up.

Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection from the member for Toowoomba South. I am sure those on the other side do have a big weekend coming up and a lot of other things are occupying their minds at the moment.

Mr Seeney interjected.

Mr GIBSON: I look forward to watching the media. I will come back to the bill before the House. One of the functions of the Water Commission has been the monitoring and reporting on infrastructure projects. I wish to touch on an infrastructure project that is very dear to my heart—an infrastructure project that this government put forward without any planning and that this government pulled out of the air on 27 April 2006. Before the Water Commission was established the then Premier flew into the Gympie electorate in his helicopter and landed at the airport and announced to the people of Queensland that unlike a water Messiah he had come to build—and these were his words, not mine—a megadam.

It has shown itself to be a farce—a farce environmentally, a farce socially and a farce economically. Over the life of the Water Commission I have been following with keen interest its monitoring and progress reports when it comes to the Traveston Crossing Dam. I might bring some points contained in these reports to the attention of the House. I think that there are some very valid points in them.

One is the cost. In these times when we have seen such blowouts on infrastructure projects one would think that the Traveston Crossing Dam cost would be constantly updated and there would be reviews of it. I note in the first progress report of September 2006 that the forecast final cost is $1.7 billion. I note in the April 2009 report, which is the most recent, that the cost is only $1.592 billion. Somehow this dam is getting cheaper as the days go on. I wonder how this is going to occur. Are they going to pay the workers less to work on the dam site?

Government members interjected.

Mr GIBSON: I take the interjections of those opposite because they obviously have no idea how the cost is being reduced. There has been no costing done. This project is a sham.

Mr Seeney: Always was.

Mr GIBSON: Always was and always will be. Should it ever gain approval it will be to the detriment of the people of Queensland. It will be to the detriment of the environment of Queensland. Unfortunately, the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam has already gutted the community of the Mary Valley. Those opposite should be disgusted with the way that this government has kicked people when they are down. Those opposite who pretend to defend the workers and those who are disabled should be ashamed about the way this project has been pursued.

The Water Commission has played a role that is a blight on the record of Queensland's water infrastructure. This bill does not go far enough. We should tonight be voting on the abolition of the Water Commission. However, we will support this step as the first of many to see, when an LNP government is in power, the Water Commission is dead and buried.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (9.12 pm): In rising to speak to the Water and Another Act Amendment Bill 2009 I acknowledge the contribution made by members of the LNP. I acknowledge in particular the member for Callide. In his contribution he made the point that the Water Commission was only constructed to take the political heat off the government. We would have to ask: why did that happen? It happened because, like so many other government agencies, it was mismanaged appallingly—just like child safety, health and electricity. This government has struggled from crisis to crisis. The only really good thing it has become relatively proficient at is managing the crisis. Rule 101 is take the pressure off the minister and establish a commission—in this case the Water Commission.

Then it was able to trot out a public servant who would speak on TV and read out the list of excuses as to why the government had failed to manage water properly. What would Fred Haig have said? Who was he? He was a water commissioner of Queensland. I found that out.

Mr Robertson: He was a public servant that they used to roll out to talk about water instead of politicians. You hypocrite! You absolute hypocrite! You got caught out again.

Mr MESSENGER: Unlike the present water commissioners, who are lawyers or bureaucrats, Fred Haig was actually a water commissioner who was an engineer. In the good old days they actually chose a water commissioner who was an engineer.

Mr Gibson: Do you think they might know something about water?

Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection from the member for Gympie. They do know something about water. I learnt about Fred Haig from a dam called Monduran Dam, which is just north of my electorate and supplies half the water supply for the Burnett-Bundaberg region. There was a lovely plaque overlooking Fred Haig Dam. It said on the plaque—

Ms Struthers: We've heard this story before.

Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection. The member should hear it again. The plaque said, 'Fred Haig, Water Commissioner, 1955 to 1974'. I did a little calculation and it worked out to 19 years. In 19 years Fred Haig, water commissioner, water engineer, built 12 major pieces of water infrastructure.

That started me thinking. I wonder how many pieces of major water infrastructure the Labor government, the other side of parliament, actually built in a similar time period—19 years. I went to 1989 when the Goss government came in and I did a little calculation through 19 years to last year—2008. Guess what? How many major pieces of water infrastructure were built in 19 years? One piece of water infrastructure!

Mr Hopper: Which one?

Mr MESSENGER: It was Paradise Dam.

Mr Gibson: Does that deliver water for South-East Queensland?

Mr MESSENGER: No, it does not deliver water for South-East Queensland. In fact, it delivers water for half of my area because it is not linked into the northern half. Guess what? Paradise Dam is about 70 per cent full and yet farmers only have 40 per cent allocation. I am getting ahead of myself. I really need to talk about this. There was a conservative government supplying a water commissioner who was actually an engineer and actually built things. They looked into the future and predicted the needs for this great state and actually planned ahead and built for the future. That is what the other side has failed comprehensively to do. What were they forced to do? They were forced to then go into panic mode, react to a crisis, pull a plan out of the bottom drawer that had been laughed at by the whole of the DNR community and say, 'We will put a dam where it is going to average one metre.'

Mr Gibson: Average 0.5 to 1.5.

Mr MESSENGER: 'All the evaporation—we will put it on an alluvial plain, we will let it leak out and we will move cemeteries and main roads'—absolute poppycock. It is absolute craziness that they have gone ahead with this. The member for Gympie said it was going to cost $1.7 billion or $1.5 billion—the government is going backwards in its price. I predict that it will probably cost $2 billion or $3 billion if this government actually goes ahead and displays its normal mismanagement—

Mr Gibson: Arrogance.

Mr MESSENGER:—and arrogance. This government has been caught out. The Labor side does not plan. It lurches from crisis to crisis. The kicker to the story is that after I introduced this story into the parliament, guess what happened? Suddenly the plaque describing Fred Haig and his achievements disappeared. It was ripped off the wall. Vandals must have been attacking this plaque at Fred Haig Dam, because it disappeared. I took photos. I could not believe it. Of course, those on the opposite side had nothing to do with the removal of that plaque. Talk about rewriting history!

I am coming up to my time limit, but I have to relate a conversation that I had with people from the Burnett when they were describing the politicians who were responsible for our water management.
They asked, 'Why is the Premier so reactive? What did she do when she was a child? Did she go to school and grab canteens from all the other schoolchildren, dip them into the toilet to fill them up and maybe put little fluoride tablets in their canteens? Did they give her $10 worth of pocket money and she spent $20?' This is what we have. We have a Premier who has mismanagement in her DNA. She is reliving some sort of childhood fantasy.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O'Neill): Order! I refer you to the name of the bill.

Mr MESSENGER: I would love to talk about the bill. The bill is the Water and Another Act Amendment Bill. Before I close, I would like to speak about another water issue and that of course is at Agnes Water-1770. This government is supplying $30 million of taxpayers' money to a desal plant that is supposedly going to supply water for Agnes Water-1770. Guess what? In the title 'Agnes Water', there is a hint: there is plenty of water there. There is a lot of underground water. They will not run out of water.
This desal plant is not needed or wanted.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (9.27 pm):

…..The continued track record of the Labor government is just wanton, wanton waste like we could never believe. The government has never thought about the future. Major infrastructure for things like water should be built a decade ahead of time to be ready for what the growth might be, whether that be another 700,000 people or whatever. Trying to build it instantly and on the spot creates massive cost overruns.

The most glaring example of wanton waste has been the Traveston Dam. This is another example of not good government but just political stunts. When Premier Beattie was facing the 2006 election and all the polls were showing him that Queenslanders blamed him for having built no water infrastructure whatsoever and for the fact that we were about to run out of water, he jumped in the Channel 9 helicopter, flew up the Mary Valley and gave an exclusive to Channel 9, saying, 'There. That's where we'll build it.' He knew there would be protests from all the good, decent families who live in the area but he could not have cared less, as long as he tried to turn the public perception around and told them that he was going to build dams.

A social desert exists today in the Mary Valley. The households have shifted out. The best steer country in Australia has been left barren and people have had to move out. No-one knows what is going to happen. It is probably one of the worst sites that could have been picked because it is shallow. Apart from the river itself and the few creeks either side, it is all sandy loam and the water will only range from 0.5 metres to 1.5 metres deep. Also, the wind and the sun would just evaporate the water. At the moment, when the floodwater goes over the banks, it goes away quickly and you can see it evaporate almost before your eyes. What has that little exercise cost so far? Another half a billion dollars has gone down the drain and there is nothing to show for it. The government does not even know if it will go ahead. It was a stunt. That just adds to the costs and the meter keeps ticking over.

It is another reason why the government has to sell the Motorways franchise, the rail services through Toowoomba, Central Queensland and North Queensland, the forest plantations and anything else. It is because of these monumental billion-dollar mistakes year after year. You would have thought this money was growing on trees the way it has being wantonly wasted. So here we are tonight looking at this sort of half change to the Water Commission. The government is basically walking with one leg either side of the barbed wire fence to get rid of one commissioner and one chairman and leave one and shift them into the department.

Post lodged by email contributor.

State Govt to fully fund Toowoomba Pipeline?

Should the ratepayers of Toowoomba Region fork out $112,000,000 for the $187,000,000 Wivenhoe Pipeline?

If you read the Darling Downs and West Moreton Regional Budget Statement you will see how "spin" and "budget" work together.

Let us imagine that the words in the document are true, even though it has been published by the Queensland Government.

On the first page under the picture of treasurer Andrew Fraser MP:

This document puts on record the Government’s commitment to the people and economy of the Darling Downs and West Moreton region.

That sets the scene so we can truly rely on this document and when we get to page 3 to see what the State is spending its money on, it reads at the opening:

Key building projects in Darling Downs and West Moreton include:

• $187 million for Wivenhoe Dam to Toowoomba pipeline ...

So it is the State Government that is building this pipeline and not the ratepayers of Toowoomba Region.

If you read 3. Capital outlays by entity (PDF 330 K) at pdf p69 doc p91:

In 2009-10, $121 million is provided to complete the 38 km Toowoomba pipeline which is forecast to be operational by January 2010. This pipeline links Wivenhoe Dam to Toowoomba's Cressbrook Dam and is planned to provide water security to the Toowoomba region with the capacity to move 14,200 mega litres a year.

The $121 million being the balance to complete what was started 2008-2009 financial year.

So who is paying for this pipeline?

Queensland Budget!!

Senator Fielding: "I kept an open mind on the road to Washington"

From The Australian, June 8 2009

I kept an open mind on the road to Washington

IT seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme.

Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme.

The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?

Only 500 years ago, people believed Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Anyone who dared challenge this idea was denounced as a heretic and punished by imprisonment, torture or in some cases even death. Public debate on this issue was strictly prohibited.

It is only on account of people such as Copernicus and Galileo, who dared question the "indisputable science", that we now know these assertions to be false.

For me, these events are in many ways reminiscent of the present debate on climate change.

Though thankfully we do not persecute those arguing against the idea of human-induced global warming, a blind acceptance of only one perspective has meant that proper debate on this issue has essentially been stifled.

Opponents of the popular opinion that global warming is a direct result of carbon emissions, a group that includes many notable and distinguished scientists, are often derided and quickly dismissed.

It is for this reason that I headed to Washington this week on a self-funded trip to look at the science and facts behind global warming. I am neither a climate sceptic nor a climate extremist. What I am, however, is open-minded.

As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive.

At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government's set of "facts". Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis.

The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government.

Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?

These are the sorts of questions that I believe need to be answered before any emissions trading scheme can be properly considered.

I plan to put some of these questions to Penny Wong and her advisers when we next sit down to discuss the carbon pollution reduction scheme bill, just as I did when I spoke to climate change experts in President Barack Obama's administration this week. I want to know why she is confident carbon emissions are driving global temperatures when during the past decade carbon emissions have been increasing rapidly but according to some scientists global temperatures have not been rising.

Can the Minister explain why through the past 100 years, global temperatures have not changed in proportion to the changes in carbon emissions?

Has the Minister seen modelling which shows that solar radiation is highly correlated to global temperature changes, and if so, why can this not be a plausible alternative explanation for global warming?

Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.

It seems even the parliamentary library, an independent resource for politicians, has become caught up in the carbon craze. Only recently, the library produced a 13,000-word manifesto on the case for carbon-related climate change. Strangely enough, however, no accompanying research paper was provided exploring any alternative views. Why are these opposing arguments treated with such disdain and, in fact, largely ignored?

I raise these questions not because I am wholly convinced of the merits of these arguments. Rather, because I believe that only by having a healthy debate on the issues and not shirking from these confronting facts can we expect to arrive at the proper conclusion, whatever that may be.

I have been criticised by some for raising these questions. However, I firmly believe that a fear of doing something unpopular should never get in the way of the responsibility to do what is right.

Several weeks ago the then parliamentary secretary for climate change, Greg Combet, correctly declared that the carbon pollution reduction scheme was one of the most significant environmental and economic reforms in the history of the nation. He could not be more correct.

It is a scheme that will unquestionably lead to thousands of Australians losing their jobs, more than 23,000 in the mining industry alone.

It is a scheme that will send the cost of basic goods and services upwards at a time when we can least afford it and will leave state governments $5.5 billion worse off by 2020.

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

Unlike the Greens, who with alarmist rhetoric and extreme ideology have painted themselves into a corner, I am willing to engage in this debate so that the best outcome for all Australians can be achieved.

Interestingly enough, there is indeed one fact on which every scientist does agree. That is, if Australia pushes ahead with a carbon trading scheme without the participation of the big global polluters such as the US, China and India, then Australia's efforts will be of little consequence.

Even the most ardent carbon-despising scientist would agree.

Perhaps it is time the Rudd government and the Greens started paying attention.

Steve Fielding represents Family First in the Senate.

Within two hours of the ABC putting Senator Fieldings views on-line (Fielding wants solar flare theory investigated ABC Online), the opportunity to comment was closed with 136 comments. It makes interesting reading, in particular the virulent and sarcastic comments of the mindless supporters of Global warming propaganda.

Fielding feels heat over solar flare theory
Fielding back from Washington with list for Wong
New Labour – not so green after all
Fielding wants solar flare theory investigated
Fielding's climate mission
Fielding wavers on climate change
Fielding undecided on human link to climate change
Fielding questions climate change-pollution link

Global Warming - let the debate begin.

Australia produces about 1.4% of the world's man made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases.

Cows and sheep (ruminant animals) account for about one-third of those emissions because they burp methane gas while digesting grass in their four stomach process. The grass, in the process of growing, would have pulled CO2 (sequestered) out of the atmosphere during the year before the animals ate it - so I guess cows and sheep are carbon neutral.

So Australia's cars, homes, industry and non-grazing agriculture produce about 0.8% (less than one-thousandth) of worldwide emissions. Why all the fuss? Why indoctrinate Australians into believing we can "save the planet" with Rudd's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)?

It's about mind control and money. We won't explore that right now but what we can explore is "Is the belief that carbon emissions from human activity affects global temperature well founded?"

This petition has been signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs:


Here is a list of their names.

As Rudd's ETS legislation nears the Senate and possible rejection, one independent Senator has embarked on his own fact finding mission - unfettered by Liberal, National or Labour party politics:

Fielding undecided on human link to climate change
Fielding wavers on climate change
Climate change sceptics 'impressive': Fielding
Steve Fielding not convinced carbon emissions linked to climate change
Senator Fielding to hear from both sides on climate
Fielding in US for climate talks
Fielding in US for climate advice
Penny Wong begins talks to win over the Greens
Govt and Greens in talks over ETS
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia

Tony Jones of ABC Lateline gets quite het up if anyone challenges the propaganda paradigm of global warming.

From ABC Lateline, last night, June 3 2009:

STEVE FIELDING: ... I'm not paid by anyone to do this. I actually believe it's important to. Because like most Australians, we've just believed one side of the debate and I haven't really spent enough time looking at the other side of the debate and that's what I'm doing.

at another point Tony Jones emphasised that there has been Global Cooling since 1998 ...

TONY JONES: Well, I mean, yes, that is their claim, that since 1998, when there was a peak in temperatures, it hasn't gone up. But you'd be aware of the other evidence on that, wouldn't you, I dare say? That Britain's Hadley Centre, ...

STEVE FIELDING: Yes.

TONY JONES: ... which is one of the most respected organisations involved in measuring global temperature has data for global mean temperatures that says 1998 was the hottest year on record; 2005 the second hottest year on record; the third hottest, 2003; the fourth, 2002; the fifth hottest, 2004 and the sixth hottest, 2006. They're saying they're the hottest temperatures ever measured since temperatures were first taken in 1880.

... no warming in 10 years is hardly supportive of continued warming, Tony. If that continues we will be in an ice age by the end of the century.

Let the debate begin. You may download this document published in the
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90 for an insight into the evidence against the Global Warming propaganda:
Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, Oregon In stitute of Sci ence and Medicine

If brown water isn't a health risk ...

... then why don't we have brown water all the time.

HIGHFIELDS WATER
Tuesday 26, May 2009

WIN News Headlines

HIGHFIELDS WATER
Highfields residents have blasted Toowoomba Regional Council over it's unpredictable water supply. This morning dirty, brown tap water was delivered to homes and businesses and while Council says it's checking the pipes, some residents say the situation isn't acceptable. .

Early this morning some Highfields residents were greeted with this, Water looking like it came out of a third world country, Col Micken from Highfields Baptist Church,
experiencing a similar problem, his electricity also going out which soon led him to discover the substandard water. For Highfields Bakery Owner Cheryl Hope- seeing dirty water through her taps hasn't been a one-off incident.

Luckily none of this water has made its way into her produce, but the reason why the supply is murky - is still a mystery.

Council officers are collecting samples from pipes throughout the city, While Council says the water isn't a health risk, the issue is its still flowing through parts of a large regional city,

Mayor Taylor was hiding as usual in case he needed to form an opinion.

Cr Paul Antonio asked Kevin Flanagan what the problem was.

Kevin Flanagan had no idea so Cr Antonio appears on TV like a stunned mullet with no answers for the people.

There is a common factor between the Toowoomba Regional Council and the disastrous Mayor Thorley administration in water matters isn't there, Kevvie.

Global warming - big business for Al Gore.

The United States Congress legislators can see through the Global Warming Swindle and expose Al Gore's motives:

Essential viewing:




As Australians concerned for the future please support your State Senators and encourage them in blocking Al Gore's Global Warming Financial Fraud. (Click the image below)